Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

[jonesdave116]

Add to that the other questions Sol88 can't answer

1. Why don't Apollo bodies have comas?
2. Why do only five of the asteroid belt object shows comas, even though hundreds of other asteroid belt objects go through exactly the same space and orbits?

Interesting questions. If all this unobserved electrical woo were to do with the eccentricity of the orbits, why are there MBCs with comae, in almost circular orbits, not to mention the centaur, 29P Schwassmann-Wachmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29P/Schwassmann–Wachmann), and Apollo bodies without them? Such as the asteroid 4179 Toutatis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis) which has an aphelion of > 4 AU, and a perihelion of < 1 AU.
I think the answer comes from the fact that pretty much whenever we look at one of these bodies with a coma, we see water. Which comes from ice. It isn't OH, and it isn't due to some sort of woo involving the SW ploughing into non-existent O^- ions, which have(n't) been created by EDM (lol) woo. That would seem to be the crux of it, imho.
Which might explain why Wally did a preview piece for the EPOXI Hartley 2 encounter on hollowscience, but then never did a follow up piece after the encounter. Given that he bases his woo on press releases, and the press releases from that mission were full of news of carbon dioxide jets, and pretty pictures of shed loads of ice around the comet, one can probably see why he went quiet. I guess there may still be a handful of the faithful, dotted around the planet, who still believe this nonsense, though.

 

[JeanTate]

Re mainbelt asteroids which are also comets: let's not forget that there's a Zooniverse citizen science project which aims to discover more, and characterize the known ones better, Comet Hunters (https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/mschwamb/comet-hunters).

Given the objectives of this project, you'd think the Electric Comet people would be all over it, right? However, their involvement is ... (you fill in the blanks)

It's almost as if the last thing they want to do is get involved in any actual scientific research, even when it's as simple as mouse clicks ...

 

[jonesdave116]

EU Ignorance

Re mainbelt asteroids which are also comets: let's not forget that there's a Zooniverse citizen science project which aims to discover more, and characterize the known ones better, Comet Hunters (https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/mschwamb/comet-hunters).

Given the objectives of this project, you'd think the Electric Comet people would be all over it, right? However, their involvement is ... (you fill in the blanks)

It's almost as if the last thing they want to do is get involved in any actual scientific research, even when it's as simple as mouse clicks ...

I've had a butcher's, JT. Cheers. (for anybody in the former colonies, 'butcher's = butcher's hook = look). When do you think these eejits will ever figure out that they are talking rubbish? Mozina; we don't have to worry about. That is a given. Idiot believes in a solid iron Sun. Forget that Burke; What about the rest of the nutters? Is there anybody there who can do maths? Equations? Certainly not the idiot Thornhill. Or Talbott. Anyone else? Nope. Had a butcher's, and it seems that they are bereft of scientifically literate mouthpieces. Surprise, surprise. Surely, after nearly 3 decades of this crap, they might actually have something? Yes? Evidently not.

 

[SelfSim]

I've had a butcher's, JT. Cheers. (for anybody in the former colonies, 'butcher's = butcher's hook = look). When do you think these eejits will ever figure out that they are talking rubbish? Mozina; we don't have to worry about. That is a given. Idiot believes in a solid iron Sun. Forget that Burke; What about the rest of the nutters? Is there anybody there who can do maths? Equations? Certainly not the idiot Thornhill. Or Talbott. Anyone else? Nope. Had a butcher's, and it seems that they are bereft of scientifically literate mouthpieces. Surprise, surprise. Surely, after nearly 3 decades of this crap, they might actually have something? Yes? Evidently not.

As an aside, Mozina's delusion of his predictive grandeur has grown over time and now evidently permits him to openly declare that his personal opinions "had greater predictive value than the collective "professional opinions" of all 200+ BICEP2 authors".

He also believes he is on the brink of doing it all again when it comes to the entire LIGO team's GW detections!

... I tell ya, he's become a true legend in his own lunchtime!

 

[Sol88]

Sol, you cling to this strawman like a little kid clutching a security blanket. I'd like you to give it up but then all you'd be left with is taunts.

But the lurkers see who brings evidence and who doesn't. Heck, the EC fails right out of the box based on bulk density data alone. Until you bring a real explanation for that (not that bogus electrical nonsense) there's really no need to get into anything more.

So what is the model that mainstream use to interpret the data and observations then Fred burfle?

The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.

I clutch it like a security blanket because the mainstream will not let it go.

No lurkers or posters here have offered any alternative.

The ELECTRIC COMET has offered another model to interpret the data and so far so good for the EC.

Would you like to talk Jets types I,II,II?

See how the dirtysnowballs(or whatever the model now is) stack up?

 

[tusenfem]

The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.

Then why do YOU keep on insisting that the mainstream model is "the dirty snowball"?
None of the mainstream proponents it making that claim, it is ONLY YOU!

Why not read a paper by Martin Rubin on how he models the outgassing of a comet? Why not read the papers by other Rosetta scientists who discover all kinds of (new) stuff, improving our knowledge of how comets work?

Why have your thunderdolts buddies and you not even looked at actual data from the Rosetta mission and from Vega 1, 2, Giotto etc. which are all freely available on the ESA and NASA data servers?

Oh, wait, that would take you out of your security blanket, confront you with new knowledge and updated models.

Heck, I expected to find X at 67P, what I found was Y, now I need to understand why Y, what makes it so (apart from Captain Pickard telling me to). That is the frakking greatness of doing scientific research. You never know what bone you get thrown. We (I) understand the basics very well, but now having this incredible amount of new data at a comet with an activity much less than we have ever visited before, makes us (me) think about things we have not thought of before, because at the earlier flybys it was not necessary to think about them.

But Sol, please stay inside your security zone, singing your mantra: "mainstream is snowball, snowstream is mainball, streamball in snowmain, I'm in my safe domain".

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale

The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.

10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale.
The evidence that comets are made of ices and dust has been gathered for over 60 years and nothing has invalidated that evidence. Comets are still less dense than water. Comets still emit gases and dust in their jets. Comets still have water ices detected on their surface. etc. etc.

His comets are rocks delusion has been delusional for over 60 years with the first measurements of comet density !

10 August 2017 Sol88: Usual ignorance about science - the first flyby of a comet was of Halley's Comet which happens to fit the description of a dirty snowball!
This was the International Cometary Explorer and the 5 spacecraft in the Halley Armada in 1986. No announcement of comets not being "dirty snowballs"! No flyby mission showed changed this description. It was the ejecta from the Deep Impact mission on Comet Tempel 1 which lead to the additional "snowy dirtball" description. In 2014 other research gave us the "deep fried ice cream" description.
The reality is that comets are made of ices and dust in varying proportions. We have not enough data to say which description is the best overall one and thus we use them all.

10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of there being a electric comet model - delusions are not scientific models.

Would you like to talk Jets types I,II,II?

=
The subject of the thread is the electric comet theory so
10 August 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet theory explanation for "Jets types I,II,II"?
Start with your source for these types of jets.
Given 8 years of ignorance about comets and "comets are rocks" delusions from you this will probably be mindless parroting of Thunderbolts cult dogma about electrical discharges, etc.

However this Looks like Sol88's ignorance yet again !
There are type I and II tails. Comet

The streams of dust and gas each form their own distinct tail, pointing in slightly different directions. The tail of dust is left behind in the comet's orbit in such a manner that it often forms a curved tail called the type II or dust tail.[52] At the same time, the ion or type I tail, made of gases, always points directly away from the Sun because this gas is more strongly affected by the solar wind than is dust, following magnetic field lines rather than an orbital trajectory.[61] On occasions - such as when the Earth passes through a comet's orbital plane, a tail pointing in the opposite direction to the ion and dust tails called the antitail may be seen.[62]

 

[Sol88]

Then why do YOU keep on insisting that the mainstream model is "the dirty snowball"?
None of the mainstream proponents it making that claim, it is ONLY YOU!

Why not read a paper by Martin Rubin on how he models the outgassing of a comet? Why not read the papers by other Rosetta scientists who discover all kinds of (new) stuff, improving our knowledge of how comets work?

Why have your thunderdolts buddies and you not even looked at actual data from the Rosetta mission and from Vega 1, 2, Giotto etc. which are all freely available on the ESA and NASA data servers?

Oh, wait, that would take you out of your security blanket, confront you with new knowledge and updated models.

Heck, I expected to find X at 67P, what I found was Y, now I need to understand why Y, what makes it so (apart from Captain Pickard telling me to). That is the frakking greatness of doing scientific research. You never know what bone you get thrown. We (I) understand the basics very well, but now having this incredible amount of new data at a comet with an activity much less than we have ever visited before, makes us (me) think about things we have not thought of before, because at the earlier flybys it was not necessary to think about them.

But Sol, please stay inside your security zone, singing your mantra: "mainstream is snowball, snowstream is mainball, streamball in snowmain, I'm in my safe domain".

How'd the catch-up with Yu. V. Skorov go? Did mention the reasoning behind the statement

Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community

?

Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets

My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?

10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.

The paper is A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke by Whipple, F. L.; Astrophysical Journal, vol. 111, p. 375-394 (1950).
This is no"dirtysnowball" model. Comets are described as dirty snowballs. The small lie is that the paper contains "dirtysnowball".

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper

Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?

10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper.
He knows that the paper models comets as ices and dust as in the Whipple paper from 1950 that he cites !
27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.

The full quote is

In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

The model being considered is dust removal by a gas drag from sublimating ices. There is no "common model". There is the common "model assumption", i.e. that gas drag is what removes dust from comet nuclei made up of ices and dust.

 

[Sol88]

10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.

The paper is A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke by Whipple, F. L.; Astrophysical Journal, vol. 111, p. 375-394 (1950).
This is no"dirtysnowball" model. Comets are described as dirty snowballs. The small lie is that the paper contains "dirtysnowball".

Apologies, my bad.

The model is not the dirtysnowball model but "The model consists of a conglomerate made up of ices such as h2o, NH3, and other molecules volatile at room temperature, mixed with meteoritic materials." ... which we describe as "Dirtysnowballs"

We're all clear now on what the mainstream model to be able to interpret the data and observations actually is?

WATER/ROCK INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTALLY SIMULATED
"DIRTY SNOWBALL" AND "DIRTY ICEBALL' COMETARY NUCLEI
James L. Gooding I and Judith H. Allton 2 ISN21/Planetary Science Branch, NASA/Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 USA. 2C23/Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co., Houston, "IX
77058 USA.

oh wait dirtyiceball???

Anyhoo, the mainstream model has solid foundation in Whipples model.

 

[Sol88]

Or as Franklin Anariba, PhD calls it, because like me

As can be ascertained by reading most of the reports published on scientific journals on comet 67P, the main paradigm is the one proposed by Whipple some time ago which can be called the Condensation-Sublimation model.

So should we call it the Condensation-Sublimation model so you mob don't get your knickers in a knot about it still being called the "dirtysnowiceball" model?

 

[Sol88]

We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.

For those lurkers who are unaware of the history of the ELECTRIC COMETS idea and think it's just from a bunch of, as JD116 bangs on about, Velikovskian woo merchants and dismissed out of hand, then arm yourself with real knowledge.

Here a little history on the ELECTRIC COMET.

1. History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction
2. History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2

 

[Sol88]

159 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to July 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

1. 17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba
2. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fantasy about "charged sheathed vortices"
3. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
4. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
5. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
6. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.
7. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.
8. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!
9. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection which is not force free field aligned currents!
10. 20 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact.
11. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
12. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.
13. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to (as requested in that post!).
14. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
15. 2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets (for the last 8 years)!

General Thunderbolt cult stuff:
20 July 2017: A Thunderbolts follower with a ignorant "cosmic climate model" delusions.
21 July 2017: The mostly ignorant and deluded cranks speaking at the EU2017 conference.
24 July 2017: Thornhill shows again that he has gone off the deep end with a "gravity = EM" speech.
31 July 2017: All sorts of idiocy in the Thunderbolts dogma listed for EU2017 (Big Bang denial, black hole denial, delusion that stars are not powered by fusion, etc.)

Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?

27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets

and then you write in the comments section of Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores you hypocritical joker!

by the way, the above was predicted and expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena and NOT icy conglomerates subliming in the warmth of the sun.

Just say'n

 

[tusenfem]

How'd the catch-up with Yu. V. Skorov go? Did mention the reasoning behind the statement ?

As he ain't coming until November, I would say it did not go.

Common model? My understanding of the common model is the dirtysnowball?

And I guess you assume that research stopped after 1950 and Whipple's initial model is the proof, just like in the thunderdolts community anything T&T write is not to be questioned, and goodness forbid actually tested with data.

If you would actually read the Whipple paper you would find out that he says that comets consist (quoting myself):

Whipple [1950] combined all spectral observations and published the now well-known “dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model the nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material.

This is the original "dirty snowball."

I cannot find who actually coined the term, maybe it was Whipple, maybe not.

 

[tusenfem]

just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena and NOT icy conglomerates subliming in the warmth of the sun.

And maybe comets are just atmospheric, phosphorus pehnomena, why not just stop in the 18th century?

Now, please explain in full detail how this electrical phenomenon works.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article (not me!)

and then you write in the comments section of Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores you hypocritical joker! ....

11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read !
It looks like Sol88 thinks that everyone with the username RealityCheck on the Internet is me!

I have now read the article which is about real science, not his delusions about comets.
Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores

Studies of molecular clouds have revealed that star formation usually occurs in a two-step process. First, supersonic flows compress the clouds into dense filaments light-years long, after which gravity collapses the densest material in the filament into cores. In this scenario, massive cores (each more than about 20 solar masses) preferentially form at intersections where filaments cross, producing sites of clustered star formation. The process sounds reasonable and is expected to be efficient, but the observed rate of star formation in dense gas is only a few percent of the rate expected if the material really were freely collapsing. To solve the problem, astronomers have proposed that magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity.

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
That RealityCheck asks another commenter to address the science.
Which is exactly what I have been doing.
Your "science" stated 8 years ago was a Thunderbolts claim that comets are rocks.
The science with supporting evidence for the last 67 years is that comets are ices and dust. Thus stating that comets are rocks once is a mistake. Repeating that comets are rocks after been told their density (less than water) is an error. After being told the Deep Impact results (water + dust) it is bordering on delusion. After 8 years and especially the Rosetta mission to 67P we have a documented history of you parroting the Thunderbolts delusion.

When you lie I will document that you lied. Thus that list and the additional items here.
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
In the same post: General Thunderbolt cult stuff + Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion.

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
EU is a bunch of fairy stories from the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult who start with the stupidity of Velikovsky and add their own inane fantasies to his, e.g. this entire thread! EU has no predictions about the real world.
But just in case this is not yet another delusion:
11 August 2017 Sol88: Cite the EU prediction that during mainstream star formation, "magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity".

This is not the EU fairy story about z-pinches and Birkeland currents crushing gas cloud to create a star. This is the mainstream model of a molecular cloud collapsing to form stars.

11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets..

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Repeats the delusion that there is a dirtysnowball model

Apologies, my bad. ...

A bit of honesty ! The rest of the post is a rinse and repeat of a futile attempt to hide the completely delusional nature of the "comets are rocks" idea.
11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusions about his imaginary dirtysnowball model.
The main delusion is that describing comes as dirty snowballs is a model!
There is the delusion that changing the description, especially for specific comets, makes the working scientific model of comets wrong.
A minor delusion is that "dirty snowball" is spelt "dirtysnowball " as he has been doing quite a lot!

11 August 2017 Sol88: Derails yet again from his delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges from Venus as recorded in myths.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper

oh wait dirtyiceball???

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper.
The paper is WATER/ROCK INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTALLY SIMULATED "DIRTY SNOWBALL" AND "DIRTY ICEBALL' COMETARY NUCLEI"
This paper is not about his delusion that comets are rocks.
The title has mainstream descriptions of comet nuclei - note the quotes. The word "dirtyiceball" appears nowhere in the paper. The quotes which make it clear that there are not named models are missed out.

 

[Reality Check]

Solo88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again

Or as Franklin Anariba, PhD calls it, ...

11 August 2107 Solo88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again making up a term for a 67 year old model !
17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba